By John Dayal
Some three and a half millennia ago, Israel – a man, not the nation – told his son Joseph: “Bury me not in Egypt, but I will lie with my fathers, and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burying place.” And Joseph said, “I will do as thou hast said.”
This is one of the more sombre but moving moments in the Old Testament’s Book of Genesis.
Chhattisgarh Adivasi Ramesh Baghel, a latter-day Joseph, could not keep his word. He wanted to inter his dead father in their village, Chhindwara, next to the graves of their elders – Christians for three generations.
The neighbours and the village panchayat leaders objected, saying the graveyard was now exclusively for Hindus and people professing their traditional religion. They threatened force if the body was not removed from his house and taken to the Christian graveyard some 45 km away.
The police, the local administration, the lower court, and the state high court more than agreed, offering state help and money if only he would agree to take away his father’s body. Ramesh Baghel would not budge and his lawyer, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, moved the Supreme Court.
With the body in the government mortuary for 20 days now, the Supreme Court on Monday laid what, in old English, would be called a “curate’s egg” – very good in parts, but only in parts.
Justice RV Nagarathna’s ruling had a touch of life. She had indicated this when she saw the photographs of Christian graves in the village burial grounds. So why were the village elders protesting and threatening now, she asked.
“Our tradition teaches tolerance,” she said. “If philosophy tolerates breaches, our constitutional practices should not. Let us not dilute it.” Quoting Gandhi, she added, “Our existence is momentary if we shatter the chains of egotism and melt into the ocean of humanity. We share his dignity.”
This story was originally published in scroll.in. Read the full story here.